Environmentally Responsible
Off-Pavement TravelDevoted to protecting the environment for the enjoyment of all.
Information and links on environmental aspects of dirt road and trail travel,
and other land use/conservation issues.

The popular image of 4WD vehicle users as yahoos who tear up the landscape
by irresponsible trail blazing and vehicular acrobatics is, happily, now
largely a myth. In my many thousands of miles of desert
travel on dirt roads and trails, I have yet to witness such behavior.
(No doubt there are still a few who are irresponsible -- just as there
are irresponsible backpackers.) The reality
is that people nowadays use their 4WD vehicles as a means to access, explore
and appreciate the great, remote natural areas of the back country. The
vehicle users I have met in these areas are responsible
appreciators of nature who adhere to the Tread
Lightly principles -- a set of common-sense rules for low-impact travel
by vehicle.

First established by the Forest Service, the Tread
Lightly rules are now universally adopted by 4WD manufacturers, clubs
and individuals. The most important rule is to drive only on established
roads and trails. Cross-country trail blazing and other vehicular antics
are now confined to designated "open areas". All other so-called "off-road"
travel actually takes place ON established roads. This leads to much confusion
in the use of the term "off-road" travel; a better term for what is actually
meant would be "off-pavement" travel.

Since it takes place overwhelmingly ON established roads and trails,
responsible "off-roading" has virtually no environmental
impact -- and certainly no more than other forms of back country travel
such as backpacking expeditions. In reality,
off-pavement back country explorers have much in common with environmental
groups, and 4WD clubs are frequently involved in environmental cleanup
and conservation projects in collaboration with federal land management
agencies. The negative image of four wheelers still persists in many peoples'
minds, however, and it takes "getting involved"
and hard work to change this situation.

If you use a vehicle of any kind to explore the back country, make sure
you are a low impact user who leaves the area better than you found it.
Follow the Tread
Lightly rules and the Code
of Recreational Ethics. In particular, drive only on established roads
and trails. Pick up trash if you see any. Travel QUIETLY and be courteous
to other back country users whether on foot or in vehicles.

Unfortunately, the myth of off-roaders
as environmental vandals is still frequently put forward by some environmental
advocates, in order to provide justification for closing primitive roads
and trails in areas of isolation and scenic beauty. In actuality, use of
these remote and primitive roads increases the traveller's appreciation
of the widerness and has no real environmental impact -- as anyone who
has explored them first hand can testify.

In typical desert terrain
(the type of back country with which the present author is most familiar),
the fraction of the surface area taken up by primitive vehicular routes
is on the order of .01%. It is difficult, for anyone who views at first
hand the insignificance of these roads and trails in the vastness of the
surrounding landscape, to imagine how they can harm the overall ecology.
Any disruptive effect of a modern, quiet, low polluting, Light-Treading
4X4 passing along such a road pales into insignificance beside such massive
natural forces as flash floods, fires, rain and even winds -- or the deafening
roar of aircraft from nearby military bases. In spite of this, dirt roads
and trails are currently being closed in record numbers in the name of
environmental protection, as a result of such measures as the California
Desert Act.

The assumption that hikers cause less environmental damage than vehicles
is false. Hikers are much less likely to carry out their litter, and much
more likely to leave established trails, step on plants, and leave human
waste and toilet paper lying about. They will, of necessity, spend more
time in a given area, with more need to camp overnight -- usually near
springs and water sources. They have greater need to forage and burn local
firewood (unlike vehicle users who can carry in their own). Their longer
travel times give rise to more pollution through human bodily waste, more
opportunity for vandalism, and less likelihood of staying on established
trails when compared with vehicular visitors. In the case of mishap they
are much harder to find and get to, and place more strain on search and
rescue resources than their vehicle-bound counterparts.

Ironically, in many protected areas cross-country hiking (with its
virtual guarantee of flora and fauna disruption) is permitted and considered
politically correct, while driving on an established road (where such disruption
is physically impossible) is banned.

I and some of my 4WD friends have experienced first hand the relatively
greater environmental impact of many hikers. One colleague commented: "I
see more problems caused by hikers than by vehicles. Fouled water, littered
camp areas, graffiti, "TP" littering the ground after the snow melt from
winter backpackers, etc. being some examples."

All this is not to say that exploration on foot is bad; just that the
common assertions by some environmental groups
about the relative evils of vehicular travel are mostly false. Following
responsible, low impact procedures is important in either case. There is
a place for both forms of travel; indeed, for most of the population, including
children,
older citizens, those with chronic diseases, and the disabled, long
desert hikes of several days are impossible, and primitive roads are the
only practical way to access and appreciate the grand beauty and isolation
of the remote wilderness.

Well-meaning environmental groups unfortunately exaggerate the effects
of vehicular traffic in order to maximize land areas designated as roadless.
For example, most off-roaders share the basic goal of "conservation of
the natural environment" with the Sierra
Club. However, its policy
on off-road use of vehicles incorporates several of the myths
alluded to earlier. Some excerpts from this policy follow (my observations
in italics):

"Trails and areas on public lands should be closed to all vehicles unless
(1) determined to be appropriate for their use through completion of an
analysis, review, and implementation process, and (2) officially posted
with signs as being open." [a "guilty until proven innocent" type of
approach]..."off-road use of vehicles may result in .. soil damage...
Erosion ... damage to stream banks, streams, and fish habitat... serious
adverse impact on flora ... Disruption of wildlife ... weakened physical
condition, death, and possible extinction of some species... "[None
of these apply to responsible vehicle use ON
established roads and trails in accordance with Tread
Lightly principles; they assume reckless cross country trail blazing.]
"... Danger to the safety of other land users because of vehicle speed,
steep terrain, sharp curves, slippery or unstable trail surfaces ..."[
In reality, vehicles can manage no more than jogging speed in the type
of terrain we are talking about here] "... potential to leave more
litter" [Vehicle owners are actually more
able and likely than hikers to carry their litter out] ... illegally
or improperly operated vehicles can often create a fire hazard ...[as
can illegal backpackers' campfires].

These and other misconceptions of some otherwise well-meaning environmental
groups unfortunately tend to alienate vehicle users rather than promoting
mutual respect; there is ample room to accommodate the needs of all users
of public lands through cooperation and education.

Anyone now visiting the Mojave Desert finds red signs everywhere, announcing
the closure of many of the dirt side roads which have been established,
if infrequently travelled, vehicular routes since the first wagons
came West. The recent huge rash of closures are a result of the California
Desert Act, which many off-road vehicle users supported in the belief that
responsible use of dirt roads would be largely unaffected. Most off-roaders
are conservationists; however they believe in a balanced approach which
preserves responsible, low impact access to our remote natural areas.

In the Death Valley area, a typical example (among many) of the Desert
Act impact is the closure of Greenwater
Canyon, a unique scenic and historic trail including impressive petroglyphs.
As in many other closed areas, access on foot is impractical due to the
canyon's length and lack of water. This has been a traditional travel route
since ancient times, with vehicular traffic at least since the 1906 Greenwater
copper rush. Access to large parts of the historic 20
Mule Team Borax Trail is also closed off by this and other recent actions.
A red sign decorates the Lost Lake access road; it is hard to imagine any
(eco)logical reason for closing such a veritable needle in the haystack
of the surrounding hundred square miles of roadless area.

Everywhere, side roads leading to old mines or to nowhere in particular
have the red sign blight, greatly reducing opportunities for exploring
and environmental appreciation. A partial list
of closures in Death Valley alone affects at least a dozen areas and
trails, relegating much of Roger Mitchell's classic "Death Valley Jeep
Trails" to history. In short, the possibilities for desert
exploration and appreciation are greatly reduced.

While having no conceivable environmental
benefit (and making management, fire control and rescue operations in such
areas more difficult and expensive), the recent excessive closures in the
Mojave are having the unintended side effect of politically mobilizing
the massive SUV-owning, tax paying public who support bona-fide conservation,
but object to being arbitrarily excluded from environmentally responsible
enjoyment of their own public lands.

Many of the roads affected by "environmental" measures are of historic
importance and have been used by wheeled vehicles since time immemorial.
Denying access prevents us and our children from exploring our historical
roots. How, for example, can we relive and appreciate the experience of
the pioneers bouncing and jolting westward in their covered wagons if,
as is likely, large sections of the original California
Trail are closed to wheeled traffic? How can we view and appreciate
remote petroglyphs or revisit the drama of early mining rushes if historic
access roads like Greenwater
Canyon are closed? Will the experience of reliving the immortal Death
Valley 20 Mule Team Borax Trail
be lost forever? Indeed, the existing wheel tracks of such trails would
soon be obliterated altogether by vegetation and erosion if not kept in
existence by the continuing passage of wheeled traffic.

The proliferation of narrowly defined "Wilderness Areas", in which access
on foot only is permitted, is an inequitable, elitist means of environmental
preservation (in addition to being inefficient
in terms of environmental management). Restricting access to experienced
long distance hikers only is a civil rights violation, as it excludes the
disabled, children, the elderly and frail, and anyone without unlimited
time and the superb fitness needed for long desert hikes. The Americans
with Disabilities Act, for example, guarantees equal access to all
public facilities, of which publicly owned remote scenic areas are certainly
an important component. For most people, in fact, the only chance to access
and appreciate the truly remote back country is by vehicle. In practice,
many closures exclude even hikers, since it is physically impossible to
carry several days' water and camping equipment across hot, waterless deserts.

Clearly, taxpayers of all stripes have a right to access their own public
land; reform of legislation and management practices which effectively
exclude the majority of the public are therefore urgently needed. If you'd
like to participate in such efforts, contact some of the organizations
and email groups listed in the "Getting Involved"
section of this page.

(In a similar vein, other public facilities such as the World Wide Web
should be accessible to all users; see Web
Access for Blind and Visually Impaired Users for information on how
to ensure your web pages are as user-friendly as possible for visitors
with visual disabilities).

Ironically, if environmental damage allegedly caused by illegal vehicle
use was a significant problem, attempting to close the backroads and trails
would not prevent it. Indeed, such closures exclude the law abiding while
posing no obstacle to the lawless. (Interestingly, many if not most closures
may themselves be illegal since they violate pre-existing
rights of access under such laws as RS
2477). To make matters worse, closing the remote primitive roads channels
all traffic into the already overcrowded main visitor routes and areas,
worsening their environmental impact.

The taxpayer deserves to have reasonable access to his own land; recent
moves to seriously impair such access rights could jeopardize the support
of many of the conservation movement's natural allies in the ongoing effort
to preserve and enjoy our natural heritage. A much better approach
to avoiding environmental damage is to restore access to primitive roads
and trails, and encourage the Tread
Lightly principles through a combination of education and law enforcement.
It is here that the code
of recreational ethics and motto of the Blue Ribbon Coalition "Preserving
the natural resources FOR the public instead of FROM the public!"
comes
into play. Instead of assuming the vehicle owning public (who, after all,
are the majority) are irresponsible environmental wreckers, why not take
a positive approach through education?

If you are concerned about roads and trails being closed in your state,
become informed and participate in reversing this trend by contacting the
information
sources listed below, and don't forget to write, fax, E-mail and visit
your Congressman.
Write to the government agencies implementing the Desert Act and other
land use measures; get on their planning process mailing lists.

Why not take a minute right now and email the US House of Representatives
Committee on Resources, simply by clicking here,
to tell them of your concerns?

Also, join and donate money to organizations
fighting for your cause. Why spend $20,000 on a 4X4 if you have nowhere
to use it? Clubs can
organize educational programs and backcountry trips for Congressmen and
their staff, so they can experience real-life, responsible vehicle use
and appreciate first hand the obvious lack
of environmental impact of these roads as well as their practical necessity
for accessing remote areas.